The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

Yes, you do, since I have no fucking idea what you might be referencing.

If it's post #515, what I said was:



Which is true when I posted it and it's still true.

If you are referring to another post, please let me know which.

In #484 you explicitly said that "everybody should be using sex-segregated spaces according to their sex" (emphasis added), specifically in response to Emily Lake talking about trans women who pass and/or who have undergone surgery.

Well, sure. But I did not propose 'sex testing' sites. Nor did I imply anything but an honour system. In the case of intersex individuals, it isn't necessarily clear they can use a bathroom that pertains to their sex (since they are intersex), so it would be up to them to pick an appropriate bathroom.

In the case of trans people, since most trans people do not get bottom surgery, nor (in my opinion), do most trans people 'pass' (as in, they would not be mistaken for a cisgender person of their gender), they should use the bathroom corresponding to their sex.

I've occasionally visited male-only sex-on-premises venues (basically a gay bath house, except there was no bathing). I don't think transmen belong there, either, because transmen are women. I haven't been in many years but I suppose the male-only policy is probably dead.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, you do, since I have no fucking idea what you might be referencing.

If it's post #515, what I said was:



Which is true when I posted it and it's still true.

If you are referring to another post, please let me know which.

In #484 you explicitly said that "everybody should be using sex-segregated spaces according to their sex" (emphasis added), specifically in response to Emily Lake talking about trans women who pass and/or who have undergone surgery.

Well, sure. But I did not propose 'sex testing' sites. Nor did I imply anything but an honour system. In the case of intersex individuals, it isn't necessarily clear they can use a bathroom that pertains to their sex (since they are intersex), so it would be up to them to pick an appropriate bathroom.

In the case of trans people, since most trans people do not get bottom surgery, nor (in my opinion), do most trans people 'pass' (as in, they would not be mistaken for a cisgender person of their gender), they should use the bathroom corresponding to their sex.

It doesn't matter whether most trans people pass, or whether most get surgery.

You specifically said that even those who do (however rare that maybe) need to be using the bathroom corresponding to their original sex. That even those that are readily mistaken for a cisgender person of their chosen sex should stay out of that bathroom because reasons.

If you want that principle consistently applied, you need to have test booths at the entrances of bath rooms to check the real biological sex of intersex individuals, or even butch females. Either that, or what you are proposing amounts to one law for transgender individuals and a different one for everybody else - the essence of legal discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

If you want that principle consistently applied, you need to have test booths at the entrances of bath rooms to check the real biological sex of intersex individuals, or even butch females. Either that, or what you are proposing amounts to one law for transgender individuals and a different one for everybody else - the essence of legal discrimination.

You ought stop with your test booth fetish. I said people should use the bathroom corresponding to their biological sex. That's ambiguous for intersex people (which people on this thread continually bring up as if that's what we're talking about, despite the fact that most transgender people are not intersex). It isn't ambiguous for transgender people, unless transgender people are routinely mistaken about their own sex.

 

[Jokodo]

If you want that principle consistently applied, you need to have test booths at the entrances of bath rooms to check the real biological sex of intersex individuals, or even butch females. Either that, or what you are proposing amounts to one law for transgender individuals and a different one for everybody else - the essence of legal discrimination.

You ought stop with your test booth fetish. I said people should use the bathroom corresponding to their biological sex. That's ambiguous for intersex people (which people on this thread continually bring up as if that's what we're talking about, despite the fact that most transgender people are not intersex). It isn't ambiguous for transgender people, unless transgender people are routinely mistaken about their own sex.

It's ambiguous for transgender people (and for some cisgender people without a known intersex condition) too.

If you define "man" to be a person with a penis, some transgender people qualify as women.

If you define "man" as someone with an XY chromosome set in the majority of their cells, many cis women (including some who have given birth) don't qualify as women.

If you define "man" as someone with estrogen/testosteron levels within the 95% normal range of people who meet both of the above criteria, many trans women do not qualify as men.

If you define "man" as a person with fully functioning testes, many cis men do not qualify.

Biology is a lot messier than you want it to be. The only thing that is binary (in many jurisdictions), or nearly so, is the choice of gender, if any, that's marked in a person's documents. That's not a fact about biology, it's a social convention, subject to deliberate choice, after considering pros and cons.

If you want to make a sound utilitarian argument that trans women - all trans women, no matter the specifics, no matter whether a particular individual 'passes' or not - categorically need to go to the gents, you have to show that the overall harm from sending them to the ladies' exceeds the overall benefit from doing so. You haven't even tried.

If, on the other hand, you want to make a principled argument that every biologically male person belongs in the gents' no matter the consequences, the only logically sound position is to equally apply it to intersex (and cis-gendered) individuals. That requires a) a definition of "biologically male" that always leads unambiguous results, and b) testing of people who, to the best of their own or everyone else's knowledge are cis to make sure they're sorted correctly.

Anything else amounts to one law for trans people and another law for everybody else.

 

[Metaphor]

It's ambiguous for transgender people (and for some cisgender people without a known intersex condition) too.

It's not at all ambiguous for transgender people. They know their sex. They describe it as the gender they were assigned at birth.

If you define "man" to be a person with a penis, some transgender people qualify as women.

No, a man doesn't have to have a penis. A male whose penis was lost in an accident is still a man.

If you define "man" as someone with an XY chromosome set in the majority of their cells, many cis women (including some who have given birth) don't qualify as women.

If you define "man" as someone with estrogen/testosteron levels within the 95% normal range of people who meet both of the above criteria, many trans women do not qualify as men.

If you define "man" as a person with fully functioning testes, many cis men do not qualify.

I define a man as an adult human male, and I haven't been ambiguous about this.

A male is the sex of the species that typically produces the smaller gametes (sperm). A person who has the other characteristics of a male but whose sperm production is inhibited is still a male, though if enough features are not male-typical, you might call them intersex.

Biology is a lot messier than you want it to be. The only thing that is binary (in many jurisdictions), or nearly so, is the choice of gender, if any, that's marked in a person's documents. That's not a fact about biology, it's a social convention, subject to deliberate choice, after considering pros and cons.

I do not desire biology to be 'not messy'. It is what it is.

If you want to make a sound utilitarian argument that trans women - all trans women, no matter the specifics, no matter whether a particular individual 'passes' or not - categorically need to go to the gents, you have to show that the overall harm from sending them to the ladies' exceeds the overall benefit from doing so. You haven't even tried.

I presume you disregard the harm done and the interests of the 'cis' men and women.

If, on the other hand, you want to make a principled argument that every biologically male person belongs in the gents' no matter the consequences, the only logically sound position is to equally apply it to intersex (and cis-gendered) individuals. That requires a) a definition of "biologically male" that always leads unambiguous results, and b) testing of people who, to the best of their own or everyone else's knowledge are cis to make sure they're sorted correctly.

Anything else amounts to one law for trans people and another law for everybody else.

It cannot be equally applied to intersex people by definition, since they are not easily defined as male or female.

Now, of course a rule that people should use the toilet that corresponds to their sex would apply to cisgendered people.

That does not imply testing of cisgendered or trans people or anybody. You are obsessed with your testing fetish that you have manufactured from whole cloth and I am baffled as to how you think it's a necessary conclusion from my statement "you should use the toilet that corresponds to your sex". If I said "people should sneeze into their elbow if they are in public", do you imagine I mean every person should have a police officer shadowing them 24/7 to make sure they do it? If I said "people should wear clothes when they leave their house", do you imagine that means I think there should be a clothes police stationed outside every doorway in the world?

 

[Jokodo]

And of course, edge cases matter. I was a researcher before I became a software developer, and I'm still a bit of both. As I researcher, I evaluated my hypotheses or others' by how well they cover edge cases - a hypothesis that doesn't cover the core cases doesn't even make it to that stage. For example, a hypothesis about the genesis of the solar system that gets the composition of the sun right (to within the limits of our observations' accuracy) but makes blatantly wrong predictions about planets and asteroids needs to go straight to the dump even though 99.9% of the solar system's mass is concentrated in the sun, and a contact form that correctly handles ascii only input but throws unhelpful errors when you enter a name with diacritics is misdesigned.

 

[Jokodo]

It's not at all ambiguous for transgender people. They know their sex. They describe it as the gender they were assigned at birth.



No, a man doesn't have to have a penis. A male whose penis was lost in an accident is still a man.

If you define "man" as someone with an XY chromosome set in the majority of their cells, many cis women (including some who have given birth) don't qualify as women.

If you define "man" as someone with estrogen/testosteron levels within the 95% normal range of people who meet both of the above criteria, many trans women do not qualify as men.

If you define "man" as a person with fully functioning testes, many cis men do not qualify.

I define a man as an adult human male, and I haven't been ambiguous about this.

A male is the sex of the species that typically produces the smaller gametes (sperm). A person who has the other characteristics of a male but whose sperm production is inhibited is still a male, though if enough features are not male-typical, you might call them intersex.

Biology is a lot messier than you want it to be. The only thing that is binary (in many jurisdictions), or nearly so, is the choice of gender, if any, that's marked in a person's documents. That's not a fact about biology, it's a social convention, subject to deliberate choice, after considering pros and cons.

I do not desire biology to be 'not messy'. It is what it is.

And what is makes it so that a lot of people - including but not limited to trans people - aren't clearly either male or female.

If you want to make a sound utilitarian argument that trans women - all trans women, no matter the specifics, no matter whether a particular individual 'passes' or not - categorically need to go to the gents, you have to show that the overall harm from sending them to the ladies' exceeds the overall benefit from doing so. You haven't even tried.

I presume you disregard the harm done and the interests of the 'cis' men and women.

A presumption entirely fabricated out of thin air. I just don't think their interests should categorically trump the interests of trans people. When one alternative implies that some cis people might feel slightly uneasy, while the other implies that trans people should expose themselves to danger by being required to expose their medical history to total strangers, that's an easy call to make without categorically disregarding the interests of cis people. Unless of course, you categorically disregard the interests of trans people.

Whether trans people should be treated as their birth sex or as what they present as needs to be decided on a case by case basis, depending on the situation, and maybe to some degree on the individual trans person. An argument about professional sports cannot be automatically transferred to bathrooms and vice versa, and an argument about a person who is little more than a cross-dresser who legally changes their name need not carry over to someone who has subjected themselves to years of hormone therapy.

In the overwhelming majority of day to day interactions, no harm is done by sticking with common courtesy and respecting a person's wishes.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's not at all ambiguous for transgender people. They know their sex. They describe it as the gender they were assigned at birth.

Jesus fucking christ. Just stop. 'Gender assigned at birth' doesn't refer to our sex; it refers the process of making a civic record of us as male or female, and subsequently channelling us into social categories of male or female (boys/ girls, men/women). But I don't have gender assigned at birth chromosomes. My prostate isn't a gender assigned at birth characteristic.

 

[Metaphor]

And what is makes it so that a lot of people - including but not limited to trans people - aren't clearly either male or female.

It isn't "a lot" of people. Intersex conditions are quite rare, and some intersex conditions are, for practical purposes, indetectable. I mean: some intersex people don't know they are intersex, and function perfectly fine as the sex they most closely resemble.

A presumption entirely fabricated out of thin air. I just don't think their interests should categorically trump the interests of trans people. When one alternative implies that some cis people might feel slightly uneasy, while the other implies that trans people should expose themselves to danger

Exposed to danger? How?

by being required to expose their medical history to total strangers,

What? That makes no sense. A trans person's (or a cisgendered person's, in fact) medical history is going to be exposed no matter what. You are saying 'a trans person should be able to expose their medical history to the sex of their choosing'. If a transwoman uses the women's lockers, his 'medical history' is going to be exposed as surely as if he uses the men's lockers.

that's an easy call to make without categorically disregarding the interests of cis people. Unless of course, you categorically disregard the interests of trans people.

It isn't an easy call to make, because you haven't provided a single argument or any evidence.

Whether trans people should be treated as their birth sex or as what they present as needs to be decided on a case by case basis, depending on the situation, and maybe to some degree on the individual trans person. An argument about professional sports cannot be automatically transferred to bathrooms and vice versa, and an argument about a person who is little more than a cross-dresser who legally changes their name need not carry over to someone who has subjected themselves to years of hormone therapy.

In the overwhelming majority of day to day interactions, no harm is done by sticking with common courtesy and respecting a person's wishes.

You've simply defined 'harm' out of existence for anybody who does not conform to your religion.

What does it mean to 'respect' a person's wishes? Do you think it means doing whatever they demand of you? Why do you discount to zero the harm done to someone by forcing them (by State sanction or social censure) to use pronouns that they don't want to use and don't believe in?

There will come the day--and I believe it to be inevitable if the current course of events plays out--that I could be fired from my job for saying "transwomen are men". Do you think THAT sounds fair? Do you think THAT affords any 'respect' to me?

 

[Jokodo]

It isn't "a lot" of people. Intersex conditions are quite rare, and some intersex conditions are, for practical purposes, indetectable. I mean: some intersex people don't know they are intersex, and function perfectly fine as the sex they most closely resemble.

And some transsexual people function perfectly fine as the sex they most closely resemble and without the vast majority of people they interact with knowing about it - and you want to change that by law, without having presented a reason other than "but they aren't real women/men".

 

[Metaphor]

And some transsexual people function perfectly fine as the sex they most closely resemble and without the vast majority of people they interact with knowing about it - and you want to change that by law, without having presented a reason other than "but they aren't real women/men".

Change what by law? It is trans activists who want to change law, not me.

 

[Jokodo]

And some transsexual people function perfectly fine as the sex they most closely resemble and without the vast majority of people they interact with knowing about it - and you want to change that by law, without having presented a reason other than "but they aren't real women/men".

Change what by law? It is trans activists who want to change law, not me.

That's not true. The law doesn't have a notion of biological sex, it only has a notion of legal sex. In legal terms, a woman is a person who has "sex:female" in her documents, and that's the end of it. If you believe otherwise, quote me one Australian, German, American law that even as much as defines who is and who isn't a woman on biological grounds. It is thus impossible for any mention of sex in legal contexts to refer to biological sex, yet that's exactly what you (inconsistently) demand: laws that are blind to a person's legal sex and only take their biological sex into account.

Now, some *intersex* activists do demand a change of law, namely to allow a third option in the "sex" field of official forms - a demand you generally appear to support.

 

[Metaphor]

That's not true. The law doesn't have a notion of biological sex, it only has a notion of legal sex.

The law's notion of sex came from biological sex. Sex is identified at birth by doctors and recorded on birth certificates.

It is thus impossible for any mention of sex in legal contexts to refer to biological sex, yet that's exactly what you (inconsistently) demand: laws that are blind to a person's legal sex and only take their biological sex into account.

Legal sex (until recently) overlapped nearly entirely with biological sex, because it was based on the sex recorded on birth certificates.

Of course, now that trans activists have allowed sex to be retroactively and incoherently to be changed on birth certificates, that system is starting to break down.

Now, some *intersex* activists do demand a change of law, namely to allow a third option in the "sex" field of official forms - a demand you generally appear to support.

Yes. Birth certificates, and other forms should allow an intersex option, because intersex people exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

No. A ten year old can't consent to sex, much less to a 'sex change'.

Ten year olds can ABSOLUTELY consent and revoke consent to the full list of things ten year olds must do.

We have this conversation what, once a month? Every human goes through a puberty. Ten years old is pretty young, but it's not too young to ask whether they consent to going through a specific puberty at a specific time. If they don't, that's what blockers are for, so while they can't consent to ENTER a puberty they can revoke consent to enter some specific puberty until their decision is validated by a whole host of professionals, at which point it isn't a "sex change".

The onset of menarche is the usual marker of puberty in girls. How many transgirls experience menarche?

played girls sports,

You sex-role essentialism is showing.

I'm talking about a specific, hypothetical girl here. It is not "essentialism" for someone to self-elect and cling to peers and play sports aligned with one's active physiological advantages (or lack thereof).

fits in well with all the other girls

Curious the number of girls at gender clinics who present with autism, actually. Quite curious.

It is curious. It is also not relevant. Imagine, neuroatypical people exploring a possible neuroatypicality! The gall of those people with different brains being aware of and curious about neuroatypicality!

(except maybe some mean girls who give her shit for having a dick, if they even know). Admittedly, she may never have periods or get pregnant. Neither did my mom. This is still a woman. Unless she expresses interest in fucking you, unless you have interest in fucking her, what is in her pants matters to nobody.

It matters to the women playing sports and the women in toilet and locker rooms all across the world. But, their feelings don't count, I guess.

No, they don't matter. Good to see you are LEARNING.

Their opinion gets to matter when their "opinion" is based on relevant information, and actual meaningful differences of specific individuals. Maybe we can give them a single "whiner's stall" so they have privacy in there from the penises.

People are 100% allowed to have genital fixations. Just, keep your genital fixations the bedroom and your genital history in the doctor's office.

You have conjured an imagined genital fixation from nowhere. Acknowledging that women don't have penises isn't a genital fixation. It's a fact of life.

"Women don't have penises" is an invented non-fact you pulled out of your ass. You have invented, declaritorially, that 'fact', and then expect others to care. Jokodo keeps making the point the 'fact' that 'men don't have sex with men', and you treat it with about as much value.

The FACT is that some humans with brains tightly corresponding to the brain you would see develop parallel to a uterus in a perfectly "normal" pregnancy can be born with a penis and recieve estrogen instead of testosterone and that person will be meaningfully "female". You call it a fact of life, I call it a naive reduction.

At any rate

 

[Jokodo]

The law's notion of sex came from biological sex. Sex is identified at birth by doctors and recorded on birth certificates.



Legal sex (until recently) overlapped nearly entirely with biological sex, because it was based on the sex recorded on birth certificates.

And where it didn't, it was always the legal sex that mattered in legal contexts, not the biological sex. If you want laws to refer to biological sex, you have to do two things: Come up with a lawyer-proof definition of biological sex that will categorize every person as either male, or female (or intersex, which in many jurisdictions would require a third step, legal recognition of intersex), and change every law mentioning sex to refer to those categories rather than to the legal sex they now refer to.

You haven't done any if those things, or even explicitly demanded them. All we see you doing is pretend that laws refer to one thing when they never did.

Remember, edge cases matter?

 

[Metaphor]

Ten year olds can ABSOLUTELY consent and revoke consent to the full list of things ten year olds must do.

We have this conversation what, once a month?

Yes, and you spout nonsense every time.

Every human goes through a puberty. Ten years old is pretty young, but it's not too young to ask whether they consent to going through a specific puberty at a specific time. If they don't, that's what blockers are for, so while they can't consent to ENTER a puberty they can revoke consent to enter some specific puberty until their decision is validated by a whole host of professionals, at which point it isn't a "sex change".

It's never a sex change because you can't change sex.

You can't "consent" to enter puberty because nature doesn't ask your consent. But there are things that other people--adults--can do to you, that you cannot consent to, like being given puberty blockers.

I can understand being too mentally weak to wrap your head around that, but i
If that's the case I can't help you

Hun, it's certainly true that you are incapable of helping anybody.

I'm talking about a specific, hypothetical girl here. It is not "essentialism" for someone to self-elect and cling to peers and play sports aligned with one's active physiological advantages (or lack thereof).

...what? What are 'girls sports'? Physiological advantage? If there are sports that females are better at than males, then transgirls are by definition not going to be as good as females at the sport.

It is curious. It is also not relevant. Imagine, neuroatypical people exploring a possible neuroatypicality! The gall of those people with different brains being aware of and curious about neuroatypicality!

Of course it is relevant. I think many boys and girls who are not transgender nevertheless might be mistaken for transgender because of their placement on the autism spectrum.

No, they don't matter. Good to see you are LEARNING.

Yep. Thanks. Bye.

 

[Jokodo]

It's not at all ambiguous for transgender people. They know their sex. They describe it as the gender they were assigned at birth.



No, a man doesn't have to have a penis. A male whose penis was lost in an accident is still a man.

Does that include in-utero accidents? Why or why not? Already getting ambiguous, you see.

If you define "man" as someone with an XY chromosome set in the majority of their cells, many cis women (including some who have given birth) don't qualify as women.

If you define "man" as someone with estrogen/testosteron levels within the 95% normal range of people who meet both of the above criteria, many trans women do not qualify as men.

If you define "man" as a person with fully functioning testes, many cis men do not qualify.

I define a man as an adult human male, and I haven't been ambiguous about this.

It is in legal contexts. No legally binding definition of "male " exists. beyond the one "whatever your documents say", which is clearly not a biological definition.

 

[Emily Lake]

All zygotes are female and change sex in utero and now, due to medical science, ex-utero.

Umm... no. We can't medically change actual sex ex-utero. Hell, we can't even currently medically change sex in-utero. We get whatever biology gives us. What we can do is change the appearance of sex ex-utero. Just like we can dye our hair, get a nose job, get butt implants, or have liposuction. But surgical transition does not actually create functional testicles that generate sperm cells carrying that person's DNA, nor does it create a prostate, a vas deferens, or a penis capable of ejaculation. A surgical transition doe not create ovaries carrying the individual's DNA, nor does it create fallopian tubes, a uterus, or a cervix capable of sucking up sperm on orgasm.

The outward appearance of a thing doesn't necessarily define the thing itself. Changing the outward appearance of a thing doesn't change its inherent nature.

Says the heterosexual who then goes on to demonstrate the exact opposite here...

I feel like I missed something here, because I'm about 99.8% sure that Metaphor is gay.

 

[Emily Lake]

A transwoman who started transitioning before puberty, and thus never underwent normal male puberty, is arguably, at least, not an adult human male.

Alright, sure. But that still doesn't make them an adult human female either.

As a side note, the entire concept of transitioning a CHILD prior to puberty is something I find really appalling and dangerous.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am definitely concerned that acceptance of the idea that male and female brains are 'naturally' or 'innately' different will reinforce those barriers for women. They'll justify the social biases that I, and many other women, are trying so hard to curb.

What if male and female brains are naturally different in several - or many - ways?

If you do not know whether that is the case, then to tie your cause to the rejection of an idea that may well be true is a bad strategy, especially if there is a good chance that science will study the matter.

What if black and white brains are naturally different in several - or many - ways? If you do not know whether that is the case, then to tie your cause to the rejection of an idea that may well be true is a bad strategy, especially if there is a good chance that science will study the matter.